Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2025 18:11:49 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.22489 of 2023 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227of the Constitution of India, 1950). Baijayanti Kund & Ors. …. Petitioner(s) -versus- Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Bhubaneswar & Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Mr. Dillip Kumar Mohapatra, Adv. Mr. G.P. Dutta, Adv. for O.P.1 Ms. J.P. Tripathy, Adv. for O.P.2 CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-12.03.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-11.04.2025 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, assails the order dated 09.05.2023 passed by the learned 3rd MACT cum-ADJ, Jagatsinghpur in MAC Case No. 167 of 2008, on the ground that the said order is illegal, erroneous, and unsustainable in law. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
Legal Reasoning
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Page 1 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2025 18:11:49 (i) On 27.08.2007, the deceased, Sandeep Kumar Kund, was returning to his residence in Kendrapada district from Cuttack after completing his work. He was traveling as an occupant in his own Ambassador car bearing registration number OR-02-D-9009, which was being driven by his driver. (ii) At approximately 2:00 AM, while the vehicle was proceeding near Chandi Bazar on the Cuttack–Chandabali road, it collided with the rear portion of a stationary truck bearing registration number OR-21- A-0952, which had been parked in the middle of the road. (iii) Owing to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head, neck, and other parts of the body, resulting in profuse bleeding. The driver of the Ambassador car suffered minor injuries. (iv) The injured were immediately shifted by local residents to the District Government Hospital, Kendrapada, where Sandeep Kumar Kund was declared brought dead. (v) Pursuant to the incident, Kendrapada Police registered P.S. Case No. 325 of 2007 under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. (vi) The widow and minor children of the deceased filed an application for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the 1st MACT-cum-ADJ, Jagatsinghpur, seeking compensation of ₹10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) from the owner and insurer of the offending truck. (vii) During the course of proceedings, the claimants filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to amend the claim petition by invoking Section 163-A of the Motor Page 2 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2025 18:11:49 Vehicles Act, 1988, in lieu of Section 166. The said amendment was allowed, and the claimants were directed to file a consolidated claim petition accordingly. (viii) At the stage of final arguments, the claimants filed another application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on 28.02.2023, seeking to amend the monthly income of the deceased to ₹5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and to proportionately reduce the total compensation claimed to ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only). (ix) The 3rdMACT-cum-ADJ, Jagatsinghpur, by order dated 09.05.2023, rejected the aforesaid application, thereby declining the prayer for amendment in the income of the deceased and the corresponding reduction in the compensation amount. (x) Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. (i) Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The Petitioner submitted that, at the stage of final arguments, an application dated 28.02.2023 was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to amend the monthly income of the deceased to ₹5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and to reduce the total compensation claimed to ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only). The amendment was sought as there was no cogent Page 3 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2025 18:11:49 documentary evidence to establish that the deceased was earning ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month. (ii) The Petitioner submitted that the proposed amendment was merely formal in nature and did not alter the fundamental character of the claim filed before 3rdMACT-cum-ADJ, Jagatsinghpur. (iii) The Petitioner submitted that the 3rdMACT-cum-ADJ, Jagatsinghpur, by order dated 09.05.2023, rejected the Petitioners’ prayer for amendment solely on technical grounds, without properly considering the statutory provisions or the binding precedents laid down by this Court and the Supreme Court. (iv) The Petitioner submitted that although Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for compensation based on a structured formula set out in the Second Schedule, the Schedule is not to be treated as a ready reckoner for determining just and fair compensation. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the observations of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Others.1 (v) The Petitioner submitted that in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh,2the Supreme Court held that amendment of claim petition can be permitted even at the appellate stage. (vi) Furthermore, the Petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh,3wherein it was observed that while considering an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code